tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN January 15, 2010 10:00am-1:00pm EST
caller: this is an idea i tried to float before but never had the ability -- how about this? i believe that organizations corporation or a terrorist organization like al qaeda -- people who are in leadership, like was, but latent or -- like all the osama bin laden or zawahiri, are going to be protected, and the way they are protected or communicate with people could not be traced in a geometric pattern. people around them, how far they are around them. i think the way they are socially organized and could be described by some algorithm.
guest: i think that one aspect of what the caller is saying is trying to findxd different algorithms were some kind of -- or some kind of computer models to figure out where these al qaeda leaders are. different types of wasys. it is unclear i-- host: mark mazzetti, sorry to cut you short. thank you for your timeç this month. getting under way is a briefing at the pentagon with secretary gates and admiral mullen on iraq. we want to let you know that around noon, there will be another briefing, an independent review on for gt hood. thanks for watching today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] .
i should note that it pertains solely to the defense department and does not address other executive branch agencies. the review was completed on time and deliver to me this week. as expected, secretary west and admiral clarke conducted a serious and thorough assessment and i thank them for taking on this difficult task.
first, because it remains an active criminal investigation, i cannot address the specifics of the case at this time. the report does include accountability recommendations involving army personnel responsible for supervising major hassan i have formed a -- forbid those to the secretary of the army and directed him to take appropriate action. considering the scope of this report it will take some time to assess the scope of the relative policies. that said, i have a review of the findings. the report concludes that the initial response to the incident was prompt and effective. leaders had anticipated mass casualty events in their emergency response plans and exercises and base personnel were prepared to take appropriate and decisive actions to secure the situation. the first responders deserve recognition for the efforts that prevented an awful situation from becoming even worse.
however, the report raises serious questions about the degree to which the entire department of defense is prepared for similar incidents in the future. especially multiple simultaneous incidents. it also reveals shortcomings in the way that the department is prepared to defend against threats proposed by an external influences by those in our community. it is clear that as a department we have not done enough to adapt to the evolving control security threat to american troops and facilities that have emerged over the past decade. in this area, as in so many others, this department is burdened by twentieth century processes and attitudes mostly rooted in the cold war. our counterintelligence procedures are mostly designed to combat an external threat such as foreign intelligence service. likewise, our force protection procedures are set up to
investigate and adjudicate criminal conduct such as domestic -- domestic abuse and gang activities. it was concluded that the dod force protection programs are not properly focus on internal threat, such as workplace violence and self radicalization. the problem is compounded in the absence of a clear understanding of what motivates a person to become radicalized and beat -- and commit violent acts. for example, the prohibition on prohibited activities is not complete and does not provide commanders with sufficient activities to prevent threats. it provides neither the authority nor the tools for supervisors and commanders to intervene when dod personnel of risk of potential violence make contact or establish relationships with persons or entities that promote self radicalization. we need to refine our understanding of what these
behavioral signals are and how they progress. at the same time, there is no well integrated means to gather, evaluate, and disseminate the wide range of behavioral indicators that could help our commanders better anticipate and internal threat. the management systems are generally managed to withhold and compartmentalize troubling information about individuals as opposed to sharing it with the leaders and people need to know. among other significant findings and recommendations, the report also says there is no senior dod official responsible for force protection throughout the department. and individuals can respond to attacks, but the department does not have a coherent approach or control system to deal with internal threats. as a next up, i am directing the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, dr. paul stockton, to conduct an
expeditious review of the findings and recommendations at in order to implement them as closely as a corporate. this will -- as appropriate. this effort will include a broad range of offices, departments and commands. my view is there are a number of actions we must take soon to fix this problem and i have set a goal of accomplishing this by march. other options will require more fundamental institutional changes over a longer time frame and my goal is to accomplish these changes, or at least have them under way by june. secretary west and admiral clark will provide a more detailed briefing later today and the copies of their report will be available at that time. we are not passing them out right now because we are up on mail briefing the congress. -- up on the hill briefing the congress.
a final thought, i would ask all commanders and leaders to make an effort to look beyond their day-to-day tasks and be attuned to personnel who may be at risk or pose a danger. one of the core functions of leadership is assessing the performance and fitness of people honestly and openly. failure to do so, or kicking the problem to the next unit or next insulation may lead to damaging, if not devastating, consequences. as i said in november, there is nothing any of us can say to ease the pain of the wounded, the families of the fallen, and the members of the fort hood community affected by this incident. victims of the attack and to the men and women who up with their lives on the line to serve their country to do everything in our power to prevent similar strategies from occurring in the future. -- similar tragedies from >> i want to mention that our thoughts and condolences are
with our neighbors to the south. to all the citizens of haiti and those who have been struck by this very significant tragedy, as well as the thousands of families across the world who are eagerly awaiting word of their loved ones. as the president commented yesterday, the losses suffered in haiti are nothing less than devastating. the united states and countries around the globe are mobilizing everyçó available element of our national capacity. coalition army and naval forces, disaster response teams, portable hospitals, canine search and rescue teams and relief and medical supplies are streaming in from multiple compassionate nations. in this crisis, this needs of 80 are seemingly boundless. what the military is best able to provide isçó security, search and rescue capabilities, potable water and medical facilities. several coast guard cutters with
their helicopters are also in the vicinity and providing similar support. this morning, the aircraft carrier uss carl vinson arrived outfitted with 19 helicopters, 51 hospital beds, three operating rooms, hundreds of thousands of gallons per day of water production capability and a significant capacity to deliver a disaster relief supplies. a company from the 82nd airborne division is on the ground to assist in security and also in distribution of meeting those needs. the rest of the brigade will be on the ground by the end of the weekend. within the next week, those assets will be augmented by two more small helicopter carrying naval vessels -- vessels, the u.s.s. normandy and the uss underwood. and the u.s. as bataan, with capabilities similar to those of the carl vincent will be ready as well as the uss for mckinley
and uss carl hall. a hospital shipñr comfort with hundreds of medical professionals and providing medical support to be of the haitian coast by the end of the next week. while these will attend to the immediate and medical needs of the people of haiti, these aircraft ships and troops also deliver hope. conceralthough, it seems of supplies and security cannot come quickly enough. you will not be forsaken and you will not be forgotten. we're doing everything we possibly can. soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines across -- and coastguard from across the nation and military across the globe stand with you. >> how many u.s. forces do you expect of money to go to haiti? and are you concerned that such a large military presence either looks like an occupying force or
overtaxes the military that is already stretched thin? >> let me start and then ask the admiral. first, this is a whole of government effort by the united states and also an international effort. the primary security force on the island is the united nations force. there are about seven dozen u.n. forces and an additional 2000 police. they will have the primary security responsibility. i think that the -- we are clearly in a position aheato doe than others, partly from our proximity, and partly from our capabilities. the key will be coordinating this entire effort. i would say from the u.s. standpoint, i feel that coordination among state a iaid:
security and the coast guard -- homeland security and the coast guard and ourselves has gone very well. the ambassador has made an effort in coordinating it, but they're also incident management teams on scenes from other agencies as well as our own joint task force. i think that we will not be seen as -- i think that if we, particularly given the role that we will have been delivering food and water -- that we will have in delivering food and water, my guess is that the reaction will be one of relief at seeing americans providing this kind of help. but there will be a lot of other people there as well. the brazilians have a significant presence and are doing a lot themselves. i do not think -- what is really
important here is getting help to the people as quickly as possible. >> more than anything else, we will be the face of a relief force. i think we will have about 1000 various troops ashore today. as you hear the numbers increase to some 9000, 10,000 by monday, many of them will be offshore on ships provide in this critical support as well and very focused on the medical needs, the food needs, the water needs. right now, literally as we speak, the vincent and the company from the 82nd airborne who got their last night are focused on delivering water from the helicopters off to shoot -- helicopters offshore to the people of haiti. we've got the requirements. the logistics of this in the
near term and the longer-term are also very focused on this. we need to get the port open. it is severely damaged. but right now, it is principally to support the search and rescue effort as well as focusing on the immediate food, water, and medical needs the force will continue to grow to support that over time, working with these many countries. >> the day after the earthquake general frazier told us that just three teams were on their way, one from virginia, one from california, one from florida. he said there were no team's resident in the military. but then last night, northern command said that they had search and rescue teams that the ruling to sen. do you think that was enough the day after, just three teams being sent? was there a failure not to send more, more rapidly? >> first, there were four teams there by last night.
we are in the process of transporting, i think, six more teams. we think that there is -- we need to take advantage of the strength the different elements of our government have. to tell you the truth, we have the best search and rescue in the military, obviously, but the best search and rescue teams like this are resident in our communities. these teams have traveled all over the world in the past to provide relief and we have supported them. and also, coordinated through fema. part of it is, can we get in there? how fast can we get them there? and can we support them? i think that we are doing that as well as we can.
>> i just talked to general keane about an hour ago, who spoke so highly about what they do and their skill set. these additional six teams are coming in and literally as we speak. i am coming -- comfortable at this point that these teams will prioritize in terms ofçó need aa way to approach this. >> [inaudible] ñi>> there is another one goingn this morning. i understand the first of those six is going in this morning. >> did you look at the possibility of air drops? that seems to be a unique military capability, both dropping in rescue teams and rock -- dropping in relief supplies. we are obviously not using it, why not? >> we talked about that early, david, more along the lines of
particularly the 82nd, whether that would be the right way to go. we made the decision that we did not need to do that. in terms of the other kinds of supplies, the water capability for instance, we are looking at getting the support that we have got there today to meet that need. but we have not -- at least, i have not seen any extensive review of the capability at this point. >> at what point did you decide that you did not need to do that? >> as we spun up through this, it was not one that we considered in terms of the overall situation in terms of the ability to receive it. i understand that we actually really had on the ground -- i understand, in terms of what we actually had on the ground at that time. chris was the overall situation on the grant, and is the basic assessment the anticipation that
it will continue to deteriorate as the days go on? also, do you have any sense of the scope of casualties? >> there is some scavenging as people are trying to find food and water, but our understanding -- and the admiral probably has more up-to-date having just talk to general keane, but the security situation remains ok. the concern is -- the key is to get the food and water there as quickly as possible. so that people do not, in their desperation, turn to violence or the to a security situation take -- deteriorating. that is why there is such a high priority in getting food and water to people. but at this point, other than some scavenging and minor looting, our understanding is that the security situation is
pretty good. >> that is what general kaine has reported but yesterday morning and this morning. certainly, we are all concerned about having that off because of the need for food and water and medical. and we're very focused on that. >> do we have an an idea of the number of casualties at all? >> i do not think we have anything beyond what we have seen from the red cross. >> given what we know about the american clinic -- the american cleric from yemen, do we believe that ford would was a terrorist attack? >> this case is being prosecuted under the uniform code of military justice. that case could end up on my desk, ultimately, for that reason as chain of command. and for that reason, i'm not going to have anything to say about the case in particular. >> about the fourthñi review, could you talk about the information rjaring within the
department of defense that you want to see post for good? what kind of information -- post fort hood? what kind of information you want to see about internal threats that has not been shared and they wanted becaus-- and thu want to see shared in the future? >> first, we do not have any reason to think that it is a significant threat. but clearly, one is too many. i have to be careful what i say here, again, because of the case. but i think what admiral clark and secretary west concluded was that what gets reported in the formal evaluation -- personnel officer evaluations often does
not pick up personal behavioral issues, and sometimes there is a reluctance to address those kinds of issues. also, if observed at one post, to pass along those concerns or behavioral issues to the next post. one of the things that, clearly, we have to look at is how can we more comprehensively evaluate our people, but also, ensure that relevant information gets forwarded from one post to the other. >> on fort hood, in your terms of reference, you asked specifically for the army policies and procedures on retention and promotion as it applied to the alleged perpetrator, implying whether he should have been promoted or
not. should he have been promoted to major given the charter of the u.s. than to review? >> again, i am not going to get into the -- given the charter that you asked them to review? >> again, i'm not going to get into the specifics of the case, but these are questions that i have referred to the secretary of the army to address in terms of accountability. >> is this what of the process has failed or not or some to raising questions for further review? >> they simply questions for the secretary of the army. >> is it too early to say if anyone in this department has begun to guess what the cost in this early phase will be for the department of defense, and more specifically, the usns comfort leaving roughly five days after this happened. in previous natural disasters, the number, five days, was
mentioned as well. is there a number in review as far as decreasing the amount of time before hospital ships are able to set sail? >> the number 5 is basically the status. mercy out in san diego, she is in a coal mine says, completely shut down from an engineering standpoint. -- in a coal mine status, completely shut down from an engineering standpoint. we are headed to excel the rate that and get her out there as rapidly as possible. to the question of whether there has ever been a review of that, i honestly do not know one way or another. i have been content with how they have been both manned and used in the past. obviously, this is a crisis that was able to -- that was a bolt
out of the blue, if you will. i think the response time, having no idea that this was going to occur, was remarkable. in all of this, we learn lessons. some of that is readiness, clearly tied to something like this. but after that -- after this point, i am comfortable that we have got that cycle about right. >> is there a cost estimate? >> i would say fundamentally we have no idea at this point. >> in the face of such devastation, are you confident, secretary, that the american response was focused on assessments early on? using debt the government can do better? >> i would say that i have watched these things for a long time. i do not know how this government could have responded faster or more comprehensively than it has.
there are just some certain facts of life that affect how quickly you can do some of these things. the collapse of the infrastructure in haiti, the small size of the airport, the time it takes a ship to get from point a to point b, those are all just faxed of life. for example, -- those are all just the facts of life. and for example, to the point of the airdrops, it seems to me without having any structure on the ground in terms of distribution, that an airdrop is simply going to lead to riots us somas people try to go after tht stuff. without any structure for distribution, or to provide security when things become available, it seems to me that as a formula for contributing to
chaos rather than preventing it. i think that we are dealing with a sovereign country. the haitians are still in charge of their air-traffic control at this point. there are just some limitations that we have to deal with that are part of the real world. i, frankly, think that it would have been tough for any part of the american government to respond more quickly. i think state aid have done a terrific job. >> do you anticipate any more ground forces to haiti than the 5000 that will be there by the end of the weekend? >> grendell, -- right now, we are certainly poised to do that and it will be based on what general frazier at the south, and general keane think they need.
-- general frazier at southcom and general keane think they need. we are really very much still in the assessment mode with much better situational awareness, i expect, of what is actually going on there in the next 24 hours, in terms of what these visited needs will be. it is too early to answer the question. >> somebody asked about stress on the force earlier. i would say that we always have a ready brigade available for deployment. that is this brigade of the 82nd airborne. >> are either of you planning to testify at the senate armed services committee? and senator levin has asked that you testify on the issue. what is the status on conversations in the building on repealing the law? >> senator levin has indicated an interest in having the hearing. but we are discussing the timing of it with the committee.
when the hearing is scheduled, but the chairman and i will testify. we are having continuing conversations inside the building about implementing the president's intent. >> we spoke about the distribution network supplies in haiti the last couple of days as supplies continue to mount at the airport and are not getting out to the population. at what point you think that system will be eased so that as supplies flow in, they will flow out to the people the need them most? >> i would say the arrival of these 19 helicopters is critical to beginning that distribution product -- process. we hear conflicting reports, frankly, about how many of their roads are open and can be used, and those that are clogged and you cannot get through at all. i think here in the first few days it will be -- the
helicopters will be central to this. >> we know, absolutely, that is a critical need that we will be focused on. we're looking at additional ports, whether we can get smaller vessels into additional ports and distribute from there as well. a lot of that will become much clearer on what the requirements are and what is going to take to get that done over the next 24 to 48 hours. >> who determines what goes where on the ngo side? >> actually, the focus of our government effort is to do exactly that, to prioritize what goes in and what gets distributed. that is a combination of the usaid the agency here in our government tied to the same agency on the ground there. they will make the distribution decisions pretty quickly. >> mr. secretary, is there a
plan yet for refugees? are you considering taking the thousands of homeless off the island? is gtmo being considered? there were some talk about that. or any other u.s. resources in the region? >> there is a lot of longer-term planning going on across a host of issues. we have not seen any need for specifics. but we certainly do not see movement in that direction at this particular point in time. but we recognize there are a lot of possibilities and many are just that. there are always continues to plans that we're looking at. -- contingency plans that we are looking at. >> is there any consideration at all on all these 5000 are really going to be used? the marines and the army. is there talk about putting them in neighborhoods for policing,
too? a lot of the news coming out this morning is that it is starting to come to a low boil on, you know, where is the help, where is the aid. is there any thought to rush in these troops out to kind of calm things down with in the neighborhoods and also clear the roads and help with distribution? is there going to be policing action with these u.s. forces? >> obviously, this is for general keane, was the joint force -- tax force -- a task force commander down there. but we will integrate with the brazilians who lead this effort for the u.n. and the 9000 security troops between soldiers and police that are already there. if we are integrating with that effort. we understand the concern. the secretary said earlier about getting the relief effort out there, which is what we are focused on right now, and the
initial intent is to soldiers to they can help without relief distribution. obviously, we are all focused on the security piece as well. we very much hope to be and stay ahead of that, but recognize that there are possibilities that we need to plan for. >> what are the 21st century assets that you have to deal with these kinds of emergencies a torsions? are they being used in haiti? are they making any kind of security impact? >> i think the primary reconnaissance vehicles, platforms that we have been using down there are p-3's. >> we are also using other
assets in space to do this. there was a request for a global hawk specifically. i cannot tell you whether it has started operations. certainly, the intent is where it can help, we will use that as we move forward. >> mr. secretary, under what conditions can you say that the u.s. humanitarian relief mission to haiti has been accomplished and how long will it take to accomplish these goals? >> i would say that we are the very beginning of the effort. it looks to me like a fairly long-term undertakings for the international community, and the united states as part of that and as a principal player. the length of time that our navy
ships will be deployed down there to provide assistance, the length of time that we will have thousands of troops in haiti or offshore, i think, frankly, is impossible to predict right now. >> back to fort hood, you said earlier that the department has not done enough to counter external threats and the influence on the force. news of the commanders do not have the tools to try to keep an eye -- you said the commanders do not have the tools to try to ward off prohibited activities on the force. what sort of tools would you give the commanders to address this, to try to counter these threats or keep an eye on the force? >> let me mention two, and then i would like the admiral to comment. one tool is for us to take advantage of research and
efforts that have been undertaken by a number of different entities. in terms of behavior's and indicators of potential problems with respect to violence in the workplace and the potential for self radicalization. identifying those indicators and having those in the hands of the commanders is one thing. the other goes back to an answer i gave to an earlier question, and that is, information. having commanders have available to them more comprehensive information on individuals, particularly if there have been behavioral issues that have been noted under previous assignments. those are two of the tools that we are certainly talking about. >> where i go with this is commanders have a responsibility and authority right now,
resident, and have for a long time -- and accountability, quite frankly, for their people. the issue of self radicalization is one that we have got to focus on because there is clearly more and more of that going on how much of it we have in the military is something that we really ought to understand. the other piece is -- would be tools that will help us, and policies, quite frankly, that would help us to share better information. not that we need a new policy to help transfer information from one post to another, but an active focus on that on the part of leadership. >> [inaudible] a greater ability to look at what people are communicating privately? >> i would not get into that specific area exactly come o, bi
would say commanders have more than adequate room and authority right now to really understand what their people are doing. there are typically indicators of this. not perfect, but there are indicators of beaters that are oftentimes known as the junior level within the unit at the squad level. how do we make sure that when we see indicators we are doing all that we can -- that is key. one other comment i would like to make, just switching to haiti, and this is in terms of response time. the coastguard was magnificent from day one. they were medivacing people literally within the first 24 hours. i want to give them credit for their responsibility as well. that has not all just in the military and out of this department. >> i understood you to say 9000 to 10,000 u.s. forces there by
monday. is that the figure you think we are poised to increase? >> it looks like we will have about that. but that does not 10,000 forces ashore. the bulk of that will be on ships. we have to be careful about that specifically. in looks like between 9000 and 10,000 between the arrival of the marines and the ships associated with that. >> last question. >> mr. secretary, you have made reference to the collapse of the infrastructure in haiti several times already. it also seems to be that the ad ready status of the state itself has largely disappeared. what kind of a capabilities and assistance is this department prepared to give to help haiti get back on its feet? >> this will be principally the responsibility, i assume, of the united nations and from the standpoint of the united states
government, the lead role will be played by our ambassador in the state department and aid and our efforts will be in support of them. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we expect more news briefings on haiti throughout the day and in the coming weeks. stay tuned for schedule information. in the briefing we just saw, secretary gates as saying an internal pentagon policy review stemming from the fort hood shootings raises serious questions about the military's ability to cope with security threats within its ranks. we will hear from the two lead authors of the report. they will brief reporters here at the pentagon at noon eastern
and we will have live coverage for you on c-span. also, a look this afternoon at what is being done to secure the future for young palestinians. the brookings institute reports that nearly three-quarters of the population in the gaza strip is under the age of 29. they will hear from the former world bank president james wolfensohn in a forum beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern this afternoon. that is on c-span2. and now republican senator tom coburn declaring -- holding a town hall meeting and taking questions from his constituents. this is about an hour and a half. >> we are going to start a little bit early. how about that? [applause] i loaded up with microphones and wires. i promise you, it is not a bomb. [laughter]
i want to spend just a few minutes to set the ground rules. i will talk for about three or four minutes about things that i think are going on now that you need to know about. then we will spend the rest of the time trying to answer your questions and get input from you. this is your town hall meeting. the purpose of it is to hold me accountable to what your thoughts, your thinking and your point is. and make sure i am aware of it. there are no questions that are off-limits. they need to be proffered in a way that is fair, but other than that, we will take any question that comes and try to answer it as honestly and straightforward as we can. i think our country is at a crossroads. i'm 62 years old. i have a pretty diverse background of being in manufacturing person for 10 years, then being a medical
doctor, then being in congress for six, then coming back and being a medical doctor. but i do not think i have ever seen us in the position we are in during my lifetime, since the '40's. i think there is a reason for that and i think it is because we have taken our eye off the ball. we have fought in the short term -- thought in the short term. ñiwe have thought selfishly ande forgot about some of the great blessings that we have through this grandes experiment in democracy in our country. " what we know of leadership as we study history is the best -- what we know of leadership as we study history is the best leadership is sacrificial leadership. that has been the heritage of our country. at one generation makes hard choices, sacrifices to create opportunity for the future.
♪ that is pretty good. that must be somebody's phone. [laughter] who starred in that movie? [laughter] the goal is, i think of what i would like to see for my grandchildren is for us to get back and we embrace the equality of sacrifice that creates quality and opportunity in the future. we have a very real problems in front of oz. let me just outline -- in front of us. let me just outline, and i do not want you to forget this because unless we solve this set of numbers, your grandchildren do not have a future. that is how straightforward is. if you take everybody in this country that is 25 years of age and younger and go out 25 years from now, so there 45 years of age and younger, and their
children and their grandkids, each one of those individuals will be responsible for $1,119,000 worth of real debt. that calculates to $70,000 per year per person before they have paid the first taxes to run a government that we have or defend the nation. and before we ever pay for a home or college education for their children. that is the magnitude of the problem that we find ourselves in in terms of our debt and unfunded liabilities. we can change that. we can fix that. but it is going to require tough love, hard decisions, and all of us sacrificing to do that, from the very wealthy to the not so wealthy. everybody will have to participate. and what you like and what you think is rightfully yours now may not be yours if we are going
to create a future for our kids and our grandkids. it is not about a certain philosophy. it is about how we maintain liberty and freedom and create an opportunity into the future. or do we go the way of all of the rest of the republics the world has ever known? here's what happened to them. every one of them failed. and every one of them failed over the same thing, fiscal issues. money is what caused them to fail. they may have been defeated and externally, but the reason they were defeated is because they failed over fiscal issues. that is kind of where we are. we will talk about anything you want to talk about. we will talk about health care if you want. but basically, this is your meeting. i will stay until everyone has run out of questions. then i will drive home to muskogee. who is going to go first? i have some guys with the microphones are around here somewhere. here we are.
come on up here. if we have got one right here. >> i think i've got some comments. the problem with our health care industry as a whole, from everything from the consumer to the provider, there is no free enterprise in an entire system. consumers do not have a choice to make a decision of what insurance company they do business with. doctors cannot accuse their providers. they're forced to go with certain networks based upon the hospital decision. companies are making decisions for employees, regardless of what that employee can afford. if we could ban group coverages and let each individual in this country choose his own coverage based on his own needs and his own family's needs, if we could do away with the insurance networks that have believe the hospital's -- bullied the
hospitals and businesses and the providers and ban price-fixing by hospitals. hospitals are having to set prices to counteract the networks. let employees buy their own insurance based on their needs. van pre-existing conditions because if you can i go get insurance -- i am a cancer survivor. i cannot change insurance for life right now. if i wanted to change, i cannot. i have a diabetic son. he is in the oklahoma high risk pool because when i left the group they would not cover him. i had to acquit him in the high- risk pool. all of this has caused no free enterprise -- i had to put him in the high-risk pool. all this has caused no free enterprise in the system.
and absolutely no public option. we are a free enterprise country. >> i use different words for what you just said. i am a practicing physician and i will see about 10 patients tomorrow morning before i head back to tulsa to do something. markets allocates resources. we can believe that or we can deny it. the assumption that they do not mean to" every -- our entire history belies that. but we have used markets to allocate resources. what what -- what that would mean is that we could reconnect the purchase of health care with payment, and we do not. therefore, we do not see market forces moderating costs because it is not necessarily in the economic interest of the individual to do that because they are not responsible for it.
43.5% in the cost of health care in this country, it costs your real wages 2%. if health insurance costs last year went up 5.5%, that cost the people who have health insurance 3% real wages. why is there no connection? because other than the deductible and a cold day, the first thing that you do not see is what is the price and what are the outcomes? you cannot find it. the point is, and that is what we have in our bill. we have forced transparency in terms of price. we could not get a vote on our build on the senate floor. they did not want to have the bill of for a vote because they knew it made sense. is the only bill that actually cut costs and incentivizes prevention, and it takes care of pre-existing illnesses. what do we know about health care? we know that we spend $2.3 trillion to ñi$2.4 trillion a yr
in health care and we know that the majority of it does not prevent anyone from getting sick. our answer to that is more government. 60% of all health care is run by the government today. medicare, medicaid, the indian health service, military and the v.a.. 60% of it is run by the government. one of the reasons you have an absolute shortage of primary- care doctors in this country is because we have set the price for what they are going to pay for primary care and the doctors will not go into it anymore. there's añi 350% payment differential. we can either say we react -- say we have relied on market scarce resources or we can deny it and allow the government to run it. i think the old -- the health care bill will ultimately pass. ñiyou saw what happened in the senate. and they will do the same thing in the house to get the votes that they need.
we will have a health care bill that the president will sign. i do not think it is the best answer for us as a nation. i can tell you what is inñi that bill. it puts the government in charge of what you will get, when you will get it, and where you will get, and that is even if you have private insurance. they will deny that, but i can show you the different organizations within the medicare advisory commission, the cost comparative effectiveness panel, the endorsement of the united states prevention task force's which just made this a good recommendation that women under 50 should not get a mammogram. and the differential is one for 1750 vs one for 1400. but we made that decision based on cost. from a cost standpoint, that indication probably is right. but if you are a woman with breast cancer at 45 and you
cannot get a mammogram because the government says you cannot have it, not because you may have a clinical indication that your health care providers as i think you should have a mammogram and you agree, provided you have to have some skin in the game, that is what is going to happen to us. if you do not think is happening, just go talk to on colleges and cardiologists and ob/gyn's in terms of how health care is our rationing health care for women in this country. and it is against the law that they are doing it. so, markets work and we can either embrace them and say they are not going to be perfect -- there is no market that is perfect. that means some people lose. but i want to tell you, go look at medicaid. we have 17 million people in this country that are eligible for medicaid that are not signed up and 40% of the doctors will not see them. that is our answer? because that is where we will put half the people under this bill.
who do we have next? back over here. let's go back there. >> i believe you have an amendment to the current senate health peribill saying that if s does pass, all federal employees, including congress, would be included in that. what is their argument against that? >> i tried that amendment. i actually got that amendment added in the committee, barely by one vote. they refused to allow that amendment on the senate floor. first, it is not a cute amendment. it is common sense. because we know if the members of commons -- the members of congress are in it they will take care of everybody else.
they refused, and that is the senate rules. we were operating under unanimous consent, which means you have to have consent of the majority party in order to put an amendment up, and they would not put ours up. i had several amendments that did not get put up. the american people should have had the opportunity to vote on it. remember, we took 2500 pages of legislation with 80 new government programs, 20,000 new federal employees, 1690 times that the secretary of hhs will write the regulations that will control your health care and we have five true republican amendments to that over two and half weeks. that is a crime. that is criminal. it is not that they can pass a bill. but the fact is, we ought to have to vote and know what we are voting on and make sure that you get to see what we are voting on, rather than pass a
bill without amending it. when you have five republican amendments voted on, and there are five corresponding democrats to make them lookçó good or give them political cover, that is not legislating. that is not fair to the american public. a government-run health care system or not, it is terrible government. who is next? this lady right here. hang on, he is going to bring you a microphone. >> is there a chance that this bill can be ruled unconstitutional by the commerce clause and is injuries to other states and beneficial to one state? >> did everybody here her question? there is a chance that, first of all, from a constitutional point of view of whether or not the government can force you to buy something, it has a very good chance of being ruled unconstitutional. that is number one. it is highly unlikely that a pro tem lawsuit will have standing
under the commerce clause in regards to what senator nelson did or senator landrieu or somebody else that got some of the things in the bill that are discriminatory. but you raise a greatñi point. when we started losing its most as a country is when the supreme court decided a very literal and broad interpretation of the commerce clause. if you go back and read what our founders had to say on article one, section 8, which is the inouye were rated powers -- the enumerated powers that spell out what the role of the federal government is, it does not fit at all with what we are doing it -- have been doing at all in this country. it does not fit. and yet, we have used court precedents to ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers. consequently, we have this ever expanding the federal government that is fairly arrogant, poorly
responsive, and very expensive. the way to change that is to reinforce the 10th amendment. the 10th amendment says that whatever is not spelled out in article one, section 8 is explicitly reserved for the people in the state's, and use that as a tool for the courts to go back and reinforce the enumerated powers. it is going to be interesting. our survival, i think, causes us to look at the ways that is in the federal government,ñi the areas where the federal government touches this and it is arrogant and not helpful. actually, at many times and harmful -- and many times harmful. and see if we cannot shrink the federal government to a size that is more manageable and do more for people in the local communities or in the states. >> first off, i would like to
say thank you for coming out. i took off work tonight so that i could be here and i appreciate you being here to answer this question. i have been without health insurance for close to 10 years. i'm self-employed. i pay state and federal taxes which provide for others' health care. i am eligible for insurer oklahoma, but because of the hard economic times coupled with the passage required payment for the program my son is on, i can only afford insurance for me or my son. my hopes is that -- my hope is that i would be allowed to buy into other federally funded programs, but that has been mixed. this is my only question. why do you want me to have health care? and if you want me to have health care, what you specifically plan on doing to get it for me? >> ok, i want you to have health care available for you. i want a good portion of the responsibility to be yours.
not everybody else's in this room. what i would tell you we should do is we should take -- change the tax code so that everybody is treated exactly the same. if you work for a business that provides you health insurance, you get $5,700 worth of benefit tax-wiseçó. but if you work for somebody that does not, you average about $107 worth of benefit tax- wise. how is that fair for you? what i would do, and you can go to our website and see it, is a refundable tax credit for everyone in this country based on what the average is for an employed person. that would automatically give you and your family $5,700 tax- free with which to purchase health care. i would also say you can buy your health care anywhere you want to buy it and you can buy what you want, what is good for you and your children. not with some bureaucrat or state legislature or federal
legislator says you have to buy. i believe that we can achieve that kind of care, where you have the opportunity to have health care, you have the funds with which to do it, and we operate -- we not raise taxes one penny on the rest of the american people. we can do that. we have been scored. we saved $1 trillion the first 10 years under the plan. . .
code so that you're treated the same as someone who works. you should get the same break as someone who is working for a company and right now you do not. >> it should not matter if i'm self-employed. >> ok. what you're saying is you want the government to manage the cost of health insurance. you should be able to goç to a
been there is going to pay a lot of people in jail. i wrote you a letter asking you to run nancy pelosi out of town on a rail. how come you haven't done that i did not expect consented to that. i am done. >> i still read every letter we get. that's why i am slow in getting back to. i have seven people write letters. i want theç answers coming back to you to be my words. when you do not get a response, it is because i am slow.
i will make sure the answer is what i think, not some 24-year- old. [applause] i want to address the issue you raised. our country is worried today. and we should be. we have millions of people out of work. we have a government regulatory scheme that failed to check the excesses'. that was the fault of congress. it is congress. everyone blames things a president, or president bush. the president's cannot do without congress. it is congress. we have to hold congress accountable. what we have to do is to restore confidence that we say in washington is about our best long-term interest as a nation, not as what is in our best
short-term expedient interest. so what has to happen is that we have to start seeing the hard votes taken or taking people out of office that are not willing to make those hard choices. that is how we will restore the confidence. it does not mean that right or left is more correct than the other. we should restore that confidence and having an honest debate about the differences rather than playing games like we saw in the health care bill or thei] gotcha politics of goig after harry reid and saying that is the big issue of the day. that is not the big issue of the day. it response that the government is accountable is a big issue. we need to stay focused on what is important. the anger will go away as the
confidence returns. it is true through open and honest dialogue an honest disagreement. my wife does not agree with 20% of the stuff i do in washington. i live with her and i have had her at close hand to be able to change her. i do not expect you to agree on everything. there should be an honest debate on what i know and when i believe to be true. otherwise, i should not be there. week ended up over here. somebody on the side -- week ended up over here. somebody on this side. -- week ende ended up over here. >> iç lost things and i would like to take this a different direction. thank you for being here.
i would like to know if the republican party,ç and i have always been a conservative republican. after the last election cycles, i would much prefer to be referred to as a patriotic american. i would like to know if the republican party has cultivated leadership capable of constructing and executing another contract with america. that is what is going to take to help us turn this thing around. [applause] >> let me put this in perspective of where i am. i think i am where you are. i am an american first. i aligned with the americrepubln party. what we're seeing is the lack
of effective leadership in both parties. we are. it has been for a number of years. there are some seniors in here. medicare part d. the singers are not paying for it. we're charging that -- the singeniorsr are not paying for it. we are charging that to your grandchildren. we added another $12 trillion so we could say it will look good for one election. that is the truth of it. the question is, are we going to beok honest about what our real problems are and approach them enough for bipartisan stem. but from a common-sense standpoint and a recognition that we cannot borrow our way out of dead.
-- out of debt. out of every dollar that we spend in excess of $3.4 trillion, 33 cents was a borrowed money that our kids will pay backed -- 33% was a borrowed money. do not let a politician coopt you. you can change our country. it is not party-oriented anymore. it is about a renewal to reimburse what made us great, which was individual reliance, personal responsibility, community health for those who need it, and a recognition that markets and hard work and on the state will create great prosperity. -- and honesty will create great
prosperity. we can solve the problems our children are going to embrace. otherwise, we will fall down the path of every other republic. it is not about republicans or democrats anymore. both parties sickene me. [applause] just think about it. about what has happened over the last 72 hours over a comment in a bookçç. how is that important toç the national security and the fact that al qaeda is trying to come in and hurt us. tell me how that relates. it does not. so we're off base. we need real leadership to get us back on base. where are we? come on up here. who had their hands up?
right here. >> i'm jim from chelsea. could you estimate how much we could reduce our overall health care costs if we could get some reasonable tort reform to give your malpractice insurance down? crest here is what we know in these studies -- >> here is what we know in these studies. " we think is between 4% and 6% is related to defense of medicine. there is a good study out on that. if in fact you had it to where you did not have a petition this ankle -- axdok litigenous angled that you did not have doctors ordering tests they knew their
patients did notç need, itw3 wd a year. ok? care bill raises in texaaxes. then you head medicare fraud -- then you haadd medicare fraud. çwe're not at $340 billion -- e are now at $340 billion. none of which are in the bill. next come up over here. -- next, over here. >> i have two questions. what is the coverage for prosthetics in this bill?
if the bill was passed and we " the democrats out and give the power back to the republicans, are you willing to spearhead the removal of this walk and repeal what -- the removal of this law and repeal it? >> i will be happy to -- if you could contact connie. see this young lady? we will try to get you an answer. if this bill passes, the soonest it can be reversed its 2015, which means it will not be reversed. you have to get past 2012 end date veto the will require 67 votes in the senate -- and a veto that it will require 67 votes in the senate.
right down here. blue shirt. >> thank you, senator. i have two questions. internationally, the president seems willing to turn our economy to a global agend -- >> i am not sure i agree with your assumption. i am not happy with some of the foreign policy and some of what i say. iç did not think cap and trade would get passed in the senate. there's always a danger when you rely on other people's opinion rather than a core body of belief which is manifest in our
constitution. when you are more interested in what for and the people think, i think it is dangerous. but i did not think that is just president obama that will be leaning toward separate presidentthat. i am more worried about this crazy idea that we will treat terrorists as law-abiding citizens and give them the same rights that you and i have rather than treat them as prisoners of war. [applause] >> my second question -- and oil field has been found in the dakotas and i hear there is a times the proven reserves of saudi arabia. you for see the political will
to lead us to more energy independence? >> i did not. there is political will. it is of the majority in congress. -- i do not. this administration is harshly anti energy. they are making it hard for everybody at every step, unless you want to do something that is subsidized by the government. for us to use our natural gas and our oil and to take advantage of that on the basis that would save us $200 billion a year, this administration is very much against that. one of the first things the interior department did was withdraw leases. we have a lot of oil and a lot of natural resources we could
utilize if the government allowed us to do that. so that has to change. that will change as the price of energy continues to go up. economically, there is going to come a time and it would be smart for us to plan today to lessen our foreign imports of energy. it will pay great dividends in terms of our capability to finance our children's future. where are we? right here. >> thank you, senator coburn. i have spoken with you in the past. i had a question concerning iran. in one of the biggest foreign
policy since of post world war ii history, we hung the shah out to dry. in recent years, you have talked about how real freak iran had slacked off -- helped radio free iran -- state relied on sources to action project news instead of -- they relied on sources to actually project news. within a year or two, we have the protests where they did not get any iota of support from the western world to support them. have you been able to move anything in the senate will have any of your colleagues been able to do anything to try to provide
support for the iranian counterrevolutionary people? i have a lot of friends about have relatives still in iran that have to deal with it. >> we have a sanctions act which is in the senate and the house. let's go back. this is an example of incompetence, inefficient government. we have what is called the broadcasting board of governors. political appointees divided -- their five members, three and two. have put people who are incompetent on that board. -- there are five members, qthre
and two. we have an agenda that everything is wrong in the world is america's fault, rather than there are other bad people in the world. freedom is not something to apologize for. we have not corrected that yet. we do not have a full complement of directors. the people that should be on their are people such a big knowledgeable in broadcast, not biased. we saw broadcasting board of governors which was designed by vice president biden who put is chief of staff as head of the. we saw something that should not have been political become politicized and then in competition. so the reason we have not had been effective voice in the middle east is because our message is not a clear message
about freedom. it is not a clear message about the news of the day. not propaganda, but just will moose, because we have been incompetent. -- not propaganda, but just real news. when a first went to washington, i got some of the farsi language translated and was appalled at what we were putting them. it was our own radio stations putting that in. that does not been solved yet. over here. -- that has not been solved yet. right here. right here with the bun. or something on top. the first estate, never describe a lady's hair -- the first
mistake as a politician, never describe a lady's hair. >> is there any way through congress some of the approvals president just signs into law can controlled, like the recent written permission that president obama gave for interpol to be involved in our country? >> per se oversight -- there is overside. -- oversight. we use interpol all the time. we are a part of interpol. we rely on them. for us to rely on them, we need them to rely on us. the question is, do we have confidence that we might lose data to the wrong people?
that is the real question. your question comes about because you don't trust us to be effective managers of what we're doing. right? we are not. we have given you lots of examples where we're not. think about it. do we share information with the royal navy? yes. do you worry about that? do you worry about it? [inaudible] ççall i want you to do is geta balanced source of news. i listened to fox, too. but you have toç balance the source of news you get to get perspective. fox is not right to all the time. çand neither is bill o'reilly d neither are a lot of them, and neither is it the other side. here's what i do.
i read "the washington post" and "the wall street journal." i can figure out which one is pulling my leg. i think you all need to do that, too. we have not given up any sovereignty with our agreement with interpol. we have gone to the point where we areç alienated, where our first judgment is to doubt rather than have confidence. we need to turn that around and we need to model confidence so we can develop confidence so our first thought is that they're going to do something right. basically what the federal government, their interaction with us, is your bill plea until you could prove yourself innocent.
i'm talking about as to interact with a bureaucracy. will assume you're doing their right so you have to prove you were doing it wrong. that is not where we are today in terms of how the american public deals with the bureaucracy. i am not worried about that. i might be wrong. income thomas wrote in a couple of months. somebody on the side. -- i mighyou can write me in a e of months. >> i want to thank you for being a co-sponsor of the fair tax. i have not met anyone who did not think it is a good idea. i would be interested to hear why you supported. >> it will help us as a country.
it makes us competitive world wide on the things we manufacture in this country. it takes the taxes off of what we manufacture. if it is sold out of this country, there is no tax. almost everything we manufacture in our country becomes 19% cheaper. think about that. you want to create jobs? create jobs that way. the second thing is the more you consume, but the more tax you pay. nobody knows what is right, even the irs. people are accosted by bureaucracy that if you asked six different offices what the answer is, you get six different dances. the fair tax, everybody pays the same thing.
-- you get six different answers. everybody gets a rebate for the basic necessities of life so you get a credit. the more conservative you are, the less you spend, the less taxes you pay. lower capital creates lower osts. investments creates more jobs which creates more markets which builds our economy and it restores the think we have lost the most, which is manufacturing jobs. this will keep us ahead of the rest of the world. nobody can outwork americans if we put it up and we set it up. if we have the incentives to do it right. i think the fear tax is great and public love to get awi wouly
with that. all right. on the side. right there. he is coming to you. çfrom your side, you are on the hard left. >> i am sorry. i should have realized that. i hope everybody can hear me. i want to thank you for taking care of me. i got a letter from social security. the notified met( that my social security check was cut off and i would not be getting any more money until a pay back the extra money i had been overpaid. i called your office about --
and in about 45 minutes, i had a word from you and your office tell me to go to tulsa and there would be at $1,000 check waiting there for me + all of the money i was do would be on my next check. i want to thank you for that. you are our congressman now. [applause] i think you and a few more in washington seem to be the only ones that have sense enough to be up there. yes. [applause] yes. our country is in one heckuva off a mess. everything is going against us. all this health care stuff, it will be transparency. obama said he would have that on cnn news, and everybody would
get to watch what was going on and we figure out who was supporting the insurance companies and who was trying to look out for us. i have not -- i watch cnn went i am not watching fox. >> actually, it was c-span. >> i have to have a question. ok. [laughter] the only question i have is to continue to do what you were doing up there and not let the plunge takeover -- and not let that bunch take over our country. all this stuff of letting the terrorists getting the same rights as citizens is stupid. somebody needs to get after them up there. >> planning said. on this side.
back there in the back. -- plainly said. feel free to go if you need to go. i will stay here until we run out of questions. >> my name is lee williams and i am from claremore. you made a statement about being dead on arrival. do you still hold to that? my next question is, the epa is formulating a lot of new regulations that can come to bear like waxman-markey. >> i think cap and trade per something similar to waxman- martkey is dead in the senate, and rightly so. w3but the epa in terms of the regulations and of the energy
industry shares to a problem of lazy legislators. one of the things i find all the time is i did not think we should be a vague and let the bureaucrats decide the answer. we decide that. you get all these bills passed where there's no specifics because we really do not know what we're doing so we cannot write the specifics. then what are we passing the law in the first place? the epa is a good example where the have massive power with minimal oversight to make major impact on american citizens without the benefit of their elected officials doing what they should have done. it is just like what got us into the financial problems and the allowed to get out of control
because we did not know what we were doing and we created this financial nightmare. congress did that. delaware let anyone tell you presidents did that. -- do not let anyone tell you presidents did that. we lead a world downfall on the basis of what congress failed to do. it was not politically popular to fix it. all right. last question over here. >> i live- in claremore. i would feel better if you're a full-time center instead of a part-time doctor. and of the health care bill is probably not the best in the world.
the oilfield was back in the bush administration. the did not do nothing. -- they didn't do nothing. >> can i practice medicine from 6:00 in the morning until 9:00 without offending you? that is when i practice medicine. i am asking you a question. >> it is not good. we should have a full-time senator. >> i walog 20 more hours a week the new do. if i practiced medicine when you are in bed, that should not be a problem with you. [applause] ñrpositive thing about me practicing medicine is it we connects me with real people, not politicians and lobbyists.
[applause] and i getw3 to see real problems of real people that i get in my mind so that when i'm in washington, it is not an esoteric. it is about real people. one of the things our founders çbelieved and wrote is that we should have citizen legislators not career professional legislators. [applause] as to your second point, bush did not create the oil industry problems. no. the republicans did not fix it. the democrats did not fix it. the politicians created the problem and did not fix it because they are more interested in getting credit for what looks good. that is exactly what is going
on. it is our fault. i said, our fault, the people in congress. so you throw us all out and send people who have will experience up there. >> like you. >> yes. i tell you what you should do. you should run against me. [laughter] [applause] if you feel you're not getting your money's worth, that i am not working hard -- i go after the problem. if you say you believe something, you should act on it. what is great about our republic is you can fix it. just run. ok?
are right. back over here. closest to you. >> i want to thank you for standing up for us in washington. a lot of things are going on with small businesses. i do not think a lot of small businessmen need loans so much as the need for people to not fear they are going to lose their jobs. people will not buy big-ticket items if they do not think they have a way of paying for them. >> i think the president has gotten that message. you will see positive things come from the administration that will incentivize real job creation that produces something. and it will restore confidence. it is half psychological now. if you are worried if you're going to have a job, you may not
be able to get out of credit debt. we need to restore the psychological aspect of that and have a jobs program. i am worried about our jobs. there will be a potential of not efficient stimulus bill. i would much rather see the $800 billion to creating fixing bridges, fixing the roads, doing the pipelines, and doing the trains and transportation that we have that produces something. we will pay more for it in the future. if we buy now, will save money. right here. >> i am james jackson. >> you drove in a long way to get here.
>> i was laughing at this man here, talking about you being a part-time politician and a doctor. i just got out of the hospitalx. i got about $6,000 of hospital bills. insurance said it is not covered. we will not worry about that. that brought me back to a story adhi heard. this guy went into a hospital and the doctor sent him a big bill. the doctors motorcycle went down. the mechanic fixed it. when he got the bill, he said, i do not understand. how come you commit $5,000 a day -- have come you can make it
$5,000 a day? he said, did you ever try to work on the motorcycle when it was not running backs [laughter] ] it is like a big bicycle wheel with individual spokes. we have dogcatcher's, all kinds of people. -- we have dogcatchers, all kinds of people. we cannot give the motor vehicle people billions of dollars. -- we can give the motor vehicle people billions of dollars. we lost jobs in the state of oklahoma. we haveçóq some penlightç 75000 homesq that have beensrepossessd --w3 we have something like 7500
homes thatç been repossessed. we give moneyçç to the refinae companies. why do we single out those people and give this money to them? there is a lot of people that are on social security. my insurance premiums went up when a 20% -- 120% this year. >> that is your supplemental medical policy. you might get a different policy. >> i did. i just got a letter in the mailbox telling me they were sure glad that they have the opportunity to be my insurance company and all that. >> one think you should do if you have that bill and yvette
supplemental insurance, is you need to -- and supplemental insurance, is you should contact my office to help straighten that out. if in fact you that is supplemental policy, how long were you in a hospital ta l? you need our help. >> i had a stroke about 10:45. the let me out the next day about 9:00. i was not in their 24 hours. >> you call our office in tulsa. >> i went to my insurance company. why are all these older people çdidn't get cost-of-living rais this year? car manufacturersç, big insurae
companies keep this -- keep their homes. you cannot help the people. >> i will give you the answer. if there is a decline in the cpip, you have no -- in the cpi, you have no cut in your social security. last year, they cpi was down about 2.3%. if we did it fair and we paid you more when it was going up, then we should take it away when it is going down. but we do not do that. the reason there is no increase is because the actual cost of çliving went down to. for%. that is why. >> -- it went down 2.3%.
if you look at the numbers, that is what it did last year. >> it cost me more for it 10- pound sack of potatoes this year. >> you have been eating too many potatoes. somebody take the microphone away from them. last question. over here. >> thank you for being here, senator coburn occurre. if you were in charge of foreign policy, how would you deal with the house of cards that is pakistan? >> if i was in charge, i would create energy independence as part of our foreign policy. that is the first thing i would do. [applause] is second thing i would do is
analysis of whether we can affect the region of pakistan and afghanistan. if you cannot, what you have to do is encircled it and content relevant influenced it. i am not sure right now based on what i know, and i will be making a trip late this winter to afghanistan and pakistan, i am not sure what the answer is there. i am not sure what we're proposing is right. it may be right. i do not have a military background. but what i do know is if we're not going to go and when, let's not go. if we are going to go, let's go and kicks to make sure that if we have to make sacrifice of american blood, it is done in the quickest, most effective way
so we accomplish a goal that is measurable and we know we can exit. [applause] all right. we have one right here. this lady has been very patient. >> i was beginning to think you had something against me. my first question is related to something you said a while back when youç were answering the ly about the cause and whether health care legislation could be deemed unconstitutional. you said the courts decided, had made decisions that have expanded the commerce clause and that that had taken our country backwards. my question, and correct me if i'm wrong, wasn't the commerce clause of the basis for the okcourt'qç decisions which said
there cannot be public discrimination based on race? >> i amçóç not an attorney so i cannot answer that. i]w3çmy relation took the comme clause is this. if you read what our founders said adopted commerceç clause, çespecially what madisonçok s( that is not what it meant. w3it is the abilityç for the federal governmentw3 to expand beyond the scope of articleççó, sectioned 8. the equal protection clause is what gives us the civil rights that we have today as well as many other abilities. we settled the aspect of the commerce clause in the civil war and the issue of whether you could violate someone's civil
rights as a state and the immune from that. take public education groups 80% of what you do in public education is mandated by the federal government. did you think most people in the bureaucracy know anything about how to teach your kids and what is best in oklahoma? if you correlate the involvement of the federal government, the worst the outcome is. we're making decisions away from the action. >> can you tell me about the status of the dream act? fáhas been introduced? would you supported? >> i did not support it. what you're telling people who are here illegally as the children of people who came illegally that we will give you
an advantage that we do not give legal aliens. and so i am on record as supporting the rights of children who came here as children of illegal immigrants to say that there -- they are as american as my kids. i do not have any problem with that. i do not believe we create a special act for people who have a benefit that other people do not have who are born here. . .
>> of the federal government, most of the time, does not know best. [applause] i will vote against the dream act. >> not all illegal aliens are hispanic. >> i did not say that. i did not imply that. the people who pushed the dream act. -- >> these children have legal residence status which is not dependent upon which state they can get tuition inquiry that has no bearing except later on. >> it is written in the dream act mandating state tuitions. >> they would have access like anyone else.
>> no, they have greater access than a u.s. citizen. under the tree and act. >> how is that? >> if you are eligible under the tree and act, you could live in oklahoma and arkansas can give you state tuition because that is where you choose to go. you can do that if you are a u.s. citizen. cannot get state tuition in arkansas. that is the difference. >> i see. >> let's go back and talk about that point. the reason we have trouble with illegal immigration is the vast majority of them are lovely people. we don't control our borders3 . that is a pillar of the federal government. that is not a killer of state government. -- that is not a failure of state government. that is a failure of federal government. most people come through our southern border are not
hispanic, they are middle eastern. they have a different agenda than our hispanic brothers and sisters coming across the southern border. again, the way we restore confidence is let's control the border then we can solve the problems we have with the illegal aliens that are here. [applause] >> thank you. >> all right, i really want to go home to supper. [laughter] we will take one more question from over here because we of more people over here and that will be our last question. back over here, right behind you, a lady. >> i understand that the government passed a law that said -- and >> we will leave the last few minutes of this town hall meeting with senator coburn for live coverage of a briefing on a
report on the fort hood shootings. reporters' questions will be taken alive from the pentagon. >> it took the opportunity to thank the co-chairs while highlighting some of the key findings as well as how he intends to move forward upon the recommendations of this report. secretary gates described the report as a serious and thorough assessments and one that should be noted it was delivered on time but despite a very aggressive schedule for this afternoon, it is my privilege to present the cochairs of that individual review. the former secretary of the army, togo west , and vern calrk, both of whom many of you know. they have graciously given some of their time to discussing with
you in more detail their findings and recommendations and to also address some of your questions. german, thank you very much for your review and your dedication and for giving us this opportunity to thank -- ask you about the report. >> good afternoon. thank you for coming. 72 days ago, a lone gunman opened fire at the soldier readiness center at fort hood, texas. 13 people died, 12 uniformed service members and a civilian. 43 were wounded. that will be remembered as a day of tragedy. admiral crowe -- admiral clark and i and all the work on this project extent, once again, our sympathies to the fallen, to the families of the fallen, to the wounded, to the families of the
wounded, and everyone who was touched by the tragedy. in the aftermath of that day, secretary gates established his independent review relating to fort hood. he asked admiral clark and me to co-chair. we accepted and we have done so and we have provided him a report. it is being released as we speak, a favored few already have it. the secretary asked us to do a careful review of personnel policies, of the force protection measures, of emergency response plans, and support to those who give medical care to our service members and 2 are wounded. he also asked us to conduct a
review of the army's application of its policies and practices to the alleged perpetrator. to accomplish this, we established five teams. each were staffed with a full range of experts and we established a board of advisers composed of senior uniformed leaders from the military services. those teams have full access to facilities, too personal, and to the resources of the departments. they visited fort hood. as did apple clark and by the day we were appointed. their review and the things they found for us and our conclusions are what constitutes of the report. secretary gates said that he would not address specifics with respect to the alleged perpetrator. we are bound by the same constraint.
we refer you to what you perhaps have already seen which is the concluding lines and our executive summary as well as the one page chapter one with respect to the alleged perpetrator in which weak point out that as a result of our review, there were several officers who did not apply the army's policies to the perpetrator. we recommended to the secretary that he preferred that finding as well as the materials associated with it to the secretary of the army for and accountability review the specific language was for review as to accountability or such other actions as the secretary of the army shall deem appropriate. this -- the report was broader than the alleged perpetrator. in fact, it is 53 findings and associated recommendations which
cover the full range of the terms of reference that you heard me speak to a moment ago. their purpose is to strengthen the army's ability, the department's ability, to find the indicators, to understand them, and to prepare itself for action as we defend the force against this threat. the secretary of defense gave you a fairly detailed overview in his comments this morning. apple clark is prepared to fill an additional information but before i pass it to him, let me mention three observations from that day of tragedy. first, no amount of preparation can be too much. leaders at fort hood anticipated a mass casualty event and our emergency response
plans and exercises. that preparation showed at fort hood two minutes after the of original receipt of the 911 phone call, emergency responders were on the scene. by emerges responders i specifically refer to elements of the fort hood securities team. one minute and half after that, the assailant was incapacitated, taken into custody, and remained in the custody of security forces throughout the remainder of that day including transportation to the civilian hospital and the provision of care to him at that time. two minutes and 50 seconds after that, two ambulances and an incident command vehicle arrived to dispense like giving medical care to those who had been wounded. and lives were saved as a
result. we will prepare harder. we will plan more diligently. we will seek to see around corners of our future to find the signs of an emerging potential event. secondly, we need to be attentive to today's hazards. yes, it is the role of our forces to protect the nation against external threats. our emerging concern is to protect the force against the internal threat. you heard the secretary of defense say and you'll hear admiral clark elaborate that we need to make sure we understand the forces that caused an individual to radicalize, to commit acts of violence, and
thereby to cause an internal vulnerability within our forces. third, courage and presence of mind in the face of crisis can carry the day. we saw that, to at fort hood. courageous acts were a key element. in preventing greater loss. the question for us is can we reward that courage by exercising the foresight to ascertain the threat. to find the information that identifies the threat and having done so, to act preemptively. admiral clark -- the >> that you secretary west. let's start first with force protection.
existing policies are not optimized for countering the internal threat what that means then is that there is in sufficient knowledge and awareness, the kind of knowledge and awareness that is required to identify and address individuals likely to commit violence. further, guidance concerning workplace violence and the potential self-radicalization is insufficient. there is not a well integrated means to evaluate and disseminate the wide range of indicators that could signal an insider threat. complicating the entire force protection area of discussion is the challenge that has been created by the diverse nature of
the responsibility as they have a bald within the department since 9/11. there are four undersecretary of defense that have responsibilities in your report on page 25, we _ what they are responsible for. the end result is that synchronization is difficult. as the secretary said this morning, there is no single officials assigned overall responsibility. that results in a question about effected policy integration. shifting to information sharing -- some policies that govern the exchange of information, both inside the department and externally and by that i mean with in the interagency arena, some of these policies are deficient. they do not support detection and mitigation of internal
threats. the time has passed when concerns by specific entities over protecting their information and how it is then allowed to prevent relevant threat information and the decatur's from reaching those that needed, that time has passed for the people need it most in this particular case are the commanders and the leaders at the point of interest. there is a requirement to create a more agile and adaptive force. one beckon deal with the changing security environment, anticipating new threats and bringing a wide and continuously devolving range of tools and techniques and programs into play. finally, under information sharing, hand in glove with an effective information sharing program is the command and
control system that supports. a robust program and the accompanying command control structure to convert information into specific decisions and actions requires more active information gathering on the potential threats and dissemination and analysis of the assessments to every level of command. the secretary tasked us specifically to look at the area of the id ing employees who could potentially pose a threat. the most summers didn't i can provide you is that there is a lack of clarity for comprehensive indicators which then limits the commanders and the rest of the chain of command ability to recognize these threats. certainly, at detecting a trusted insider's intention to commit a violent act requires
observation of behavioral juice and anomalies. this is a difficult task. let me shift briefly to a comment on health providers. the secretary asked us to look at this. they are a very important a part of the security equation. the tendency is to focus on the care of combatants. health-care providers are not immune to the stress is present in their workplace and that is true whether they are at home or deployed. our recommendation suggests there is a requirement to put the right programs in place to support these critical people. finally, let me talk about emergency response. secretary west, secretary of defense gates this morning made the observation that the response at fort hood was great.
i want to align myself with those comments. i was committed to the armed forces for 37 years. on the second day of our service here, secretary west and i went to to for food. we received a briefing from general cohen and the team down there on their after-action lessons learned. i want to tell you that their report and the actions that they identified it were the best that i have ever seen in 37 years of service. lots of good news to report -- the people on the base were certainly prepared, dedicated. secretary west talked about prompt rates of speed which was terrific. having said that, to their
conviction that it can be even better. an example of what may so successful was the effective implementation of a counter to the active shooter reality that was present at fort hood. we can spend some time on that if you would like but it was executed in a superb fashion and the outcome certainly did prevent further bloodshed. with regard to the response of the entire team, there are a memorandum of agreement or understanding at fort hood. there were called mutual aid agreements there and those are agreements that led up the relationships between people on the base and potentially an external providers, and so forth. our finding is that there's sufficient policy for the establishment of these kinds of
devices. the experience at fort hood suggest that without those devices, the outcome would not have been is barely affected. -- as nearly affected. there are problems and some regimes. some of them are dated. my experience is that if you can put them in place this weekend or a month from now, they might be out of date because people change. what we are suggesting is that we're in burma's are possible, they should be identified including exercise requirements and all the rest. currently, all 50 states in the union have complied with the federal requirements for the national incident management system. this is the result of an active in 9/11. we found that within the department, there were no establish milestones to defined initial and pull capabilities.
our recommendation is that a time line for achieving capability should be examined shi with an eye toward bringing about a system that would be fully interoperable with all of the state's when the process is complete. let me conclude my response and comments about to emerge as a response with another statement about command control. the command control structure that we refer to earlier is ultimately manifested itself in the middle of a crisis response. again, agility, adaptability, and speed of response is the key. at fort hood, commanders had to deal with misinformation and that is true in every crisis that will ever happen in the history of man. we believe that a better system
is required and we also believe in -- and recommend that the department demands more strenuous exercise some areas of that crisis response in the future will meet the objectives and standards the department holds for itself. the response of the port would community and the aftermath of the tragedy there serves as a reminder of the strength of our nation and the resiliency and character of our people. secretary west and i were extremely impressed with the people at fort hood, military, civilian workers on base, and people in the civil sector that supported them on that incredible day. i certainly want to align myself with the comments of secretary gates this morning and my partner in this, secretary west,
regarding the families and the wounded in this incident. the thrust of our efforts has been to do everything that we know how to do, to split the -- to put the spotlight on programs and policies and procedures that will enable the department to become better and provide the kind of structure and force required for the future. thank you and we look forward to your questions. >> the report mentions that several officers will be referred to the refractions. can you speak to that? hell vulnerable are other posts to an attack? >> we are bound by the same constraints that the secretary of defense is and cannot talk about specifics. i will say that we have not considered the question of
numbers. >> of the numbers of officers being referred to? >> right. >> can you give an estimate of how many you can across? >> was the difference -- >> are we talking dozens? >> the language of the report which i quoted is 7. >> with regard to vulnerability to day, secretary gates addressed directly. this is not a threat that somebody thinks is massive and overwhelming the force but one is too many. his language this morning suggested that so much has changed in the last decade. as i look at this and i look at everything that is going o in
the area of security and the issues that face the nation, i believe this is another one of those key moments in time where we assess ourselves again. we take advantage of this experience and insure by having the courage to challenge every assumption we make about the way we do things and the way we execute things, the assumptions that we have in place, building a security apparatus, and make sure by challenging those assumptions, that we meet the standards we set for ourselves and those are the areas that we suggested to the secretary in terms of policy. >> at the bottom of page six, you talked about discrepancies between the alleged perpetrators documented performance and official records and its actual performance. in english, does that mean his document performance seems to
indicate an unblemished record but his actual performance, there were problems that were never affected -- shown in the official record? >> page 6 of -- go ahead. does that refer to -- >> discrepancies. it indicated a promising at -- officer bourse's performance in the field that were not reflected in the official record. and i read that accurately? >> we will not try to interpret the language for you in general. the specific answer to that question is this, discrepancies can be discrepancies internal to what is said in one place. it can be what you said as well. that is, between was reported and was not.
that's it. >> your report talks about problems you have identified to the joint terrorism task forces, a recommendation that potentially more military personnel should be on that task force i know that has a limit. if you could talk to us a little bit about what you found there and what you are recommending to insure the critical information does get shared? >> one of things in the terms of residenclicense -- reference. we were nuts boasting in to fear with the criminal investigation. the president had authorized and started an investigation into intelligence activities and we did not go there. what we did learn in the process
and our reflection there is a simple premise of how many -- what the commitment, the department's commitment terms of resources. also, an understanding that there were modifications in the dissemination process that were being examined. our recommendation is simple and straightforward -- the department's has a vested interest in the outcome of all of that. we should be working together to ensuring what we talked about, insuring that the best information that is available is made available to the key people so that we can provide for the security of our people. that is threefold. >> admiral mullins said earlier self radicalization. he said more and more of that is
going on. your report talks about extreme practices with the eight groups. -- with eight groups. is in the immediate problem radical islamic radicalization? >> it is radicalization of any sort and for whatever reason. our concern is with actions and the facts. not a sarah lee with motivations for the role of motivations if they are allowed to get carried away too far to become the spark of action. suppose it were fundamentalist christian and-inspired. our concern is not with the religion. it is with the potential affect our soldiers' ability to do their job. >> no particular old religious group? >> we did not cited the to grow. we are setting the activity that is prejudicial to good order and discipline and making sure, knows the language -- the language talks about activities
that are dangerous to us. this activity that should not be authorized. there is much to be learned about all of these indicators. when we talk about the indicators, we suggest that we did phase one. that suggests that there is not clarity about these indicators. what needs to happen now in phase ii is drilling down into this issue and coming to grips with solutions to that question. what are these indicators? we also say that we believe that this is the adaptability. this is not a single point solution. it is an evolving solution.
>> to you see more radicalization going on? >> i don't know the universe and we did not going to all that we were examining. we're not out there digging around in that. admiral mullen has his point of view and i respect that. >> the timeline you gave from the 911 call. do you know how long elapse from the beginning of the shooting until the 911 call? >> frankly, we thought about that. we even had a best estimate for the problem was when we try to end and all the components, we never come out with the same number. i will give you my answer only. roughly, somewhere between seven and eight minutes from the first shot to the last. >> by a line with that. you can understand the
difficulty in getting from the initial shot to the 911 call. there is nobody sitting in there with a stopwatch taking that information. it is very clear that is why we are so response -- impressed with the response. it was fabulous. >> i thought there were some hands on this side of the room, too. >> secretary gates said he did not consider the eternal -- internal threat to be significant. this is a question of changing culture and mines in the military. do you think that the fact that this could be more an aberration is going to make it more difficult to change the culture overtime? you don't want to go too far and make the military become a witch hunt. >> he was right in that. what is significant is we are
talking about the fact that on all of our posts across the country, what we called credentialed members are able to enter, using theirxd uniform without being stopped for routine checks. you cannot do it any other way or we would bring the post to a halt. we're talking about the fact that also are policies which do permit stop and search will not catch anything that is carried in in a car. that is significant. if we cannot insure that we can find these people, we have not proposed anything. fort hood has instituted periodic checks of everyone without advance notice.
that will certainly help. what is significant is our ability to respond to accuse, indicators, and other ways about finding the individuals on whom we have to be, with respect to home, we have to care for nc those indicators are potential violators. >> how you -- how will you incorporate this new kind of culture in the military? >> we made several recommendations and we have the old fall back which is let's look to the next set of reviews to focus on very the secretary said in his statement this morning, he sent a message to the force. he said commanders step beyond your day-to-day duties. as part of it. that is a message for everyone. >> before all this happened, there was an army melted --
mental health advisory team. they recommended a doubling of the number of mental health providers afghanistan. was there pressure to provide those bodies might have caused people to overlook the shooter's problems? >> frankly, i think you'd have to ask the army about those specific responses. in looking at programs, policies, and procedures, we know that there are always, doing personal assessment, there are always shortfall areas that a department or particular service is pursuing. i cannot speak to the accuracy of the report that you're speaking to. one would expect that the whole personnel management process is continually doing the kind of assessments that seek to meet the current needs.
we know that the kind of warfare that our people are placing on the front, and that is why i alluded to health care providers, these are stressing times for them. is the force stressed? they are stressed when we train. health-care providers must be provided the same kind of care in responding to the situations that exist that even combatants are dealing with. >> in the security section, you call on commanders to have the authority to intervene in the case of activities where dod
personnel road be at risk -- dod personnel would be at personal risk. does that mean commanders will have to be out there looking at what is being preached at certain mosques or radical christian churches or whatever? how involved you what the military a kind of assessment? >>ñi what admiral mullins said e day the test force was created was that there and i speak as a person who did this for 37 years -- there is an inherent belief in the chain of command and the ability of the chain of command to deal with problems. the secretary -- secretary west said a moment ago that you can chart commanders to look carefully and understand that this is a challenging threat
arena. the difference between a force protection system that puts up barriers to keep cheverly out and now dealing with threats to have the potential to be inside. what those comments mean is that the chain of command has to be watching, listening, being in a situational awareness. >> was political correctness a factor in overlooking the self radicalization that we're not here? >> you are referring to my personal assessment of what might be in the amex and restricted access. i will not discuss anything in the restricted access other than what has been said.
>> since you did not get the question and answer, do you have an inbounds question? next. >> what are the duties -- you talk about information sharing within the department of defense. how far do you want that to go? t want chaplains who counsel people and other mental health providers if they see someone with indicators, you're talking about them going to their commanders and you need to take a look at this. is that privacy violation? how far should that change. >> i can feel the admirals' ed -- elbow in my rib cage. now's the time to talk about balance.
we want commander awareness of what is happening in their units and what happened to their people. abnormal in will tell you that they are already supposed to do that and we should that have to stellar -- say it. our emphasis is on that's where we believe much of the solution lies. we're not recommending that our soldiers and their commanders be told to rat on their colleagues. we understand that they should be concerned engaging conversation and be aware. be aware when they are in trouble or when they require support. sometimes, counseling and a helping hand might help but other times they want signs that need to be paid attention to and passed along the chain of command. that is so those of authority can decide what is the right
thing to do. of this works without a number -- another one of our recommendations which is that the effort to collect from exports, our own experts and others, the signs that something is wrong, the signs that there across the board, so that commanders and others can have a sense of what they are. then, there is the ability to bring those two together. >> before we moved the next question, let me talk about other things we should be speaking about when we talk about sharing information. something happens on base a and how does that information gets to base the b a few miles away? when we talk about a command control system that changes outcomes, we are talking about the ability to share real time or near real-time information in a way that will insure the right outcomes.
our finding is that that system does not exist we need to enable the commander with the kind of information with the information that will allow them to be pre- emptive in dealing with these things. >> if you had been major hassan 's officers, what would you have done based on you learned. >> do you think maybe you stepped across there. it refers to what we learned. >> you probably could say that you will have been alarmed by certain things. you could probably say that. >> let me tell you what we did say.
we thought that several officers responsible for applying the army policies to him, did not do so. we think that should be referred to the secretary of the army for considerations of accountability. >> is very positive thing you could say as to what you would have done had you been the situation? >> this morning, the question was asked about information moving from base to base with an individual. one thing that leaders do and could officers is -- at the heart of the united states military as we grow and develop. the growth and developed a process sometimes takes counseling. sometimes it takes instruction. part of what we are suggesting
has to do with sharing information. we found that some information is maintained at a local level and some information is maintained at a service of wide level. leaders are the people who direct the kind of interchange with individuals to improve their performance. we use the term officer ship because we believe this is fundamental to the institution and our recommendation is that the secretary of the army take a look of that. >> here and then here because you had your hand up a lot. >> you said you do not want soldiers telling on each other but you want and concerned. you want them to be more concerned, don't you? you want the chair with more mccain of -- chain of command, don't you?
>> yes. >> when can we expect to hear who and how many people will be reprimanded for the mistakes made. >> i will not give you a time but it may have been to refer to the army. it has been referred to the secretary of the army. they have the information. >> and do you have some people in mind already? >> the decision is with in the kitchen of command. this referral for accountability accountability has to do with whether there's a bases there to hold those particular people responsible. we made a recommendation that is in your report. i used the language for you. refer to the secretary for review as to accountability and such other matters as may be
proper. >accountability raised the question of anything the secretary of the army may consider in terms of action. >> maybe this is a phase ii question but do you recommend how to break this culture of essentially letting troops slide by on bad recommendations are people not really responding to what they see as may be odd behavior? is that something that you discuss? >> we have a recommendation to the secretary that he send a strong message and he spent part of this morning.
>> is the line to -- language suggesting what to do? you have assessed correctly. this is a challenge performance appraisal, i was chief of the navy, one thing i was doing was to hold appraisal situations. in offline discussions, we have talked about the challenge in this. this is not just a department issue. this is an issue in performance appraisal systems everywhere. we did not define a specific plan. we said to the secretary that in order to be able to identify internal threats as much accurate information as is possible, is required to be known by the leaders. what we find in the process is that some information is passed
and some was not. the report says on page 7 that some potential information was missed. potentially, some information was misinterpreted or missed. the point is, we are suggesting that the policies and programs behind a performance appraisal system merit review and an emphasis on accurate information. the secretary past that this morning. >> one more question and i think we will be dragged away. >> the language of the report says officers failed to comply and you are recommending them for possible reprimand, that you do not recommend names? >> no. you're saying several officers? you did not say who? >> we are not recommending but all our research and everything that contributed to it is being passed to the army along with a report. >> there were news accounts
saying that five people -- is that accurate or not? >> we have a comment on that. if you ask us to confirm that -- here is the answer, >> you don't name the several officers. >> we did not name them to the secretary either. we have no doubt that the army would be able to isolate the individuals and take the poor reaction. we had any doubt about it, we would not have gone forward. >> there are in formal investigations and comes to disciplining personnel. we were given the phase one part of this. that was the informal piece of it.
there is a large amount of volume and information that is being turned over to the army. we have the kind of data and records were we could examine this. that is part of the restricted access give us the kind of comfort where we understood the issues in a manner in which we could make a recommendation we did. we recommended that it be -- that the secretary passes to the secretary of the army for action and he did so, according to his words this morning. he said he has already done so. >> when he announced our formation six weeks ago or so, he said that this is not a review to point fingers. we follow his instructions but make no mistake, the army has addition information to do what it has to do. we thank you all for your time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national
cable satellite corp. 2010] >> admiral michael mullins said he expects 9000-10,000 troops will be in haiti offshore by monday. that is in a briefing earlier today at the pentagon. as scheduled, in other 10 minutes, we'll take you live to the white house. president barack obama will make a statement to the press on the situation in haiti. it was reported that the president could finally reach the haitian president, telling the leader directly that his disaster-stricken country would receive national and international support. we will have the president live coming up at 1:00, eastern. also live at 1:00, at the brookings institution, they're holding a discussion on looking
at the future for young palestinians. while we wait for the president, we will look at "washington journal." we want to know from you the best way to help haiti. our first phone call comes from crest on the independent line and wait and, ohio. caller: good morning. -- host: go ahead, we can hear you. caller: pat robertson was right. it did -- they did sell their souls to the devil. not that we should not help --
host: what about allowing the haitians to find jobs here? caller: we don't have jobs. we need to get rid of all the regulation and everything. then the american people can go over there and rebuild in two seconds. host: move on to the republican line. go ahead, please. i think we lost that call. let's move onto snow hill, north carolina. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. this was a tragic situation but haiti has been such a poor country for so long and we have neglected to help them. they are in our backyard and would not take too many resources.
it is said to take a situation like this for our eyes to open. when thg their heads cut off in haiti, we would not let them come here. americans can show our good side and obama i think is -- this is part of us restoring our image. if he doesn't like the past administration and many in this -- administrations before, i really feel for the haitian people. i think they have been through a lot. i think they should bring the haitian policy to the forefront for it in the future, it might
work out. tuesday said situation but my work out for the better. we should go and do what we are doing now. they are in our own backyard. we need to help these countries right around us regardless of whether they're black or whatever. host: on the website of the u.s. trade representative, it says that the ustr statement on certification for benefits from haiti. the haitian people to export -- to have accessçó to duty-free apparel and other articles. there should be -- there was an extension made for that legislation. little rock, arkansas, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning.
i totally disagree with the last caller. i don't think the united states should totally put this bill. -- put to this bill. the international community should pitch in. we have millions of haitians here who are here legally. they are already sponging off our resources. i think we have done enough good to haiti. i feel we are not responsible for footing this entire bill. host: at the top, we gave a list of what other countries are giving initial relief. some other countries here,
germany, $2 million, finland $1.8 million. that is the initial aid relief going into the country. "the wall street journal" a graph of the military relief that is arriving and today they will get another large aircraft carrier into the country, with 14 helicopters and relief supplies. that is from this morning. we go to urbana, ill., on the independent line. caller: i have been watching the news events closely and i heard about 50% of occasions or unemployed before this. about one in 10 were receiving some kind of foreign aid. this will take a long time to heal this.
contra . untry host: we found on the start -- state department's website yesterday that the unemployment rate in the formal sector is between 70% and 80% and 54% of asians live on less than $1 per day, illiteracy is estimated at 44%. there's an article but says a haitian port capital incomef is extremely low. dallas, texas, on the line for democrats, good morning. caller: 94 taking my call. i am all for allowing bay asian immigrants to come over